Ditching Blu-ray And DVDs To Go Digital

kumquat said:
How much money did you spend on all the SSDs required to hold a movie library?
Click to expand...

lol, that's the heading part. There is no need today for physical disc media or their respective drives. I can't say the same for the traditional HDD. But someday we will be able to say the same.
 
Crotan said:
Well I think you're ignoring another avenue all together, I think many people here are. And that's either rips or remuxed file formats.

For instance I watch plenty of 1080p mkv movies, yet I don't have a Blu-Ray player nor do I have the hassle of worrying about internet congestion on Netflix or buying third party software just to play a disc.

This is where the world is heading, physical media is a joke. If you have to spin something to read it, you're going to have a bad time. Be it a disc or HDD platter.
Click to expand...

There are a number of problems with this and why no one mentioned it.

1) The vast majority of these types of files are pirated. I know of next to no legitimate businesses selling blu-ray quality digital files.
2) Downloading Blu-ray quality with lossless audio is an absolutely Gigantic file. Given the BW caps most people have to deal with, it just isn't an option.
3) The overwhelming bulk of digital media available legally is no where even remotely close to blu-ray in terms of quality. Just because it claims 1080p, doesn't make the picture quality the same or especially the audio.
4) Given your reference to HDD storage I assume you are referring to streaming. The idea of streaming a true blu-ray quality movie is completely laughable for most people. I have a 50mb connection and frankly doubt I could do it smoothly. If you are referring to using SSD's as storage, then I am laughing even harder.
5) Storing your stuff in the cloud is utter and complete stupidity.

So that pretty much leaves physical media..why? Because it is superior in visual and audio quality, it is easier to obtain legally and access to it can't be suddenly turned off.
 
okashira said:
When I transcode my blurays, I keep the original video (no re-encode) and cut out the extras.
I also transcode the TrueHD/DTS-HD/Whatever audio to 5.1 AAC (nero encoder 0.50 Q setting)

You can not hear the difference. I have encoded several movies with the original THD/DTS track preserved and my AAC track, and switched between them on my, let's say, half way decent audio setup, and I have not heard the difference.

This strategy gets the average movie size down from 50GB to 13GB over the 25 or so I've done. I use .mkv format to pack the original video, audio and subtites.

Biggest savings was Akira with its 5.1 24bit 192kHz DTSHD master track that I transcoded to 96kHz 24bit AAC. I challenge you to hear the difference. They were identical in my testing, with a 13GB space savings.
Click to expand...

I'd bet so too. It's like mp3s - most double blind tests show most people cannot pick out the difference between mp3 and CD past about 192kbps (and even more so at 256k and above). Audiophiles insist on FLAC and even sillier stuff like SACD.

I haven't seen a definitive double blind study on it but I doubt most people can pick out the difference between compressed Dolby Digital and the uncompressed HD formats. If nothing else, I think Dolby Digital Plus would probably have done the trick (higher-bitrate/better codec DD).

The biggest thing for BD over streaming for me, is the pixellation you tend to get on high-movement scenes and such when they starve the bitrate.

I have absolutely zero interest in buying DRM'd digital files. Zero. You'd have to pay me to take them. BD is a lot better (although the constant needed AACS updates are annoying) plus you have something you can actually sell if you want to (another con of digital downloads).
 
Crotan said:
lol, that's the heading part. There is no need today for physical disc media or their respective drives. I can't say the same for the traditional HDD. But someday we will be able to say the same.
Click to expand...

I don't think internet connections in the US are where they need to be to phase out physical media. When you buy a Blu, the movie portion is usually 20-30GB, and another 5-15GGB for extras. You can't deliver that experience over your average internet connection. Right now, DD movies don't include extra's, but if they are going to be charging retail or near-retail prices they need to find a way to include them. Many people expect that when buying a movie. Even if they compress the movie (which would retain most of the quality), you're still talking a 20-25GB download. That's a time consuming download on a fast connection, and one that most people wouldn't even consider on a slow connection... never mind how quickly hard drive space would be consumed. At the end of the day, this means the experience delivered with physical medial simply is not attainable for most people with direct download. All of this will be even more of a hurdle if/when 4k takes off.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Because it is superior in visual and audio quality
Click to expand...
That kind of depends on how you're defining quality. If you're referring to measurable attributes, yeah, Blu-ray will always win. If you're referring to perceptual attributes, it isn't always that clear.

I don't think iTunes or any other 1080p download options offers perceptual transparency on anything but a limited number of displays, but current options will be at least reasonably close to perceptual transparency, and their current failings aren't substantial in actual use. The story on this can shift in a matter of months, though, as providers increase quality levels and as encoders continue to mature. Both just have to get to a point to cross the threshold where most users will not be able to perceive a difference without taking measurements. This point isn't as high as you'd think.
 
Viper87227 said:
I don't think internet connections in the US are where they need to be to phase out physical media. When you buy a Blu, the movie portion is usually 20-30GB, and another 5-15GGB for extras. You can't deliver that experience over your average internet connection. Right now, DD movies don't include extra's, but if they are going to be charging retail or near-retail prices they need to find a way to include them. Many people expect that when buying a movie. Even if they compress the movie (which would retain most of the quality), you're still talking a 20-25GB download. That's a time consuming download on a fast connection, and one that most people wouldn't even consider on a slow connection... never mind how quickly hard drive space would be consumed. At the end of the day, this means the experience delivered with physical medial simply is not attainable for most people with direct download. All of this will be even more of a hurdle if/when 4k takes off.
Click to expand...


You charge a lower price. Did you guys learn nothing about iTunes. 99 cents a song, you could buy the songs you wanted for far cheaper than a CD and whatever purest wav quality an .wav file carried.

But oh there are going to be AAC quality or equivalent to a compressed MP3 and they will sync with your device that you can take anywhere.

People didn't seem to mind.
 
wonderfield said:
That kind of depends on how you're defining quality. If you're referring to measurable attributes, yeah, Blu-ray will always win. If you're referring to perceptual attributes, it isn't always that clear.

I don't think iTunes or any other 1080p download options offers perceptual transparency on anything but a limited number of displays, but current options will be at least reasonably close to perceptual transparency, and their current failings aren't substantial in actual use. The story on this can shift in a matter of months, though, as providers increase quality levels and as encoders continue to mature. Both just have to get to a point to cross the threshold where most users will not be able to perceive a difference without taking measurements. This point isn't as high as you'd think.
Click to expand...

With a decent projector and a decent sound system, the differences are evident. When we hit the point where A/B testing and download caps are no longer an issue, I'm on board. Currently I rip almost anything worth my time from optical. I stream everything I don't really care to rip.
 
GreenMonkey said:
I'd bet so too. It's like mp3s - most double blind tests show most people cannot pick out the difference between mp3 and CD past about 192kbps (and even more so at 256k and above). Audiophiles insist on FLAC and even sillier stuff like SACD.

I haven't seen a definitive double blind study on it but I doubt most people can pick out the difference between compressed Dolby Digital and the uncompressed HD formats. If nothing else, I think Dolby Digital Plus would probably have done the trick (higher-bitrate/better codec DD).
Click to expand...

It really depends on the equipment. I have no problems with a 256k (or 192) MP3 in my car. But, play the same file inside with my old (in process of updating) audio system and you'd notice a difference. Not a huge one, but you would notice one. Same with movies. Yes, I can tell a difference between Dolby Digital and DTS-HD. Watch movies like I Am Legend, Avatar or others with very minor things in the back ground. Wind, bugs, grass blowing, etc.. When it's all action, it's harder to tell, but when you get those really small nuances it can make a big difference. You can seriously hear things you didn't notice before and it makes it a more immersive experience.

But, for HTiB, you either won't notice or it will be very minor. The higher quality stuff is easily differentiated when you get into the higher quality of A/V equipment. I'm not even using real high end (Axiom mains and soon to be Dayton sub to replace aging M&K powered by a mid-range Yamaha receiver) stuff for audio. Projector is a Panny 3500 1080P with a 109" Elite screen. It's a dedicated home theater, but it's not super high end, but it's more than the average HTiB stuff. Yes, I do notice those small differences in that room. That's where I expect to, and that's why I go with the higher quality stuff. Why have the equipment be capable yet use inferior media? Why buy a HDTV and use 480i/p media? I enjoy movies, I enjoy the big screen and the nice loud clear audio of the movies. I spend money on that to enjoy my hobby. It's difficult to do all that and then fall back on crap quality.

Anywhere else in the house, car, work, I don't have the higher standards. Because I CAN'T tell the difference due to the lower equipment quality.
 
Ur_Mom said:
It really depends on the equipment. I have no problems with a 256k (or 192) MP3 in my car. But, play the same file inside with my old (in process of updating) audio system and you'd notice a difference. Not a huge one, but you would notice one. Same with movies. Yes, I can tell a difference between Dolby Digital and DTS-HD. Watch movies like I Am Legend, Avatar or others with very minor things in the back ground. Wind, bugs, grass blowing, etc.. When it's all action, it's harder to tell, but when you get those really small nuances it can make a big difference. You can seriously hear things you didn't notice before and it makes it a more immersive experience.
Click to expand...

Have you actually done a double blind test to verify? It's quite likely those differences are simply the placebo effect, or the effect of having the volume 1 or 2 decibels louder (people have a known psychological preference for louder = sounds better).

Just saying "I know it's better" is no better than the folks that insist garlic made their cold go away. Or whatever. It's random, anecdotal data - and not even valid data, if it wasn't double blind.
 
So your telling me people use DVD or Blueray now?? I can't say I know of anyone that uses either.

Thent
 
I don't want to carry huge amounts of disks, but you can be sure I love having backups of everything I have in digital land.
 
GreenMonkey said:
Have you actually done a double blind test to verify? It's quite likely those differences are simply the placebo effect, or the effect of having the volume 1 or 2 decibels louder (people have a known psychological preference for louder = sounds better).

Just saying "I know it's better" is no better than the folks that insist garlic made their cold go away. Or whatever. It's random, anecdotal data - and not even valid data, if it wasn't double blind.
Click to expand...

No, not a blind test at all. And it could be completely the placebo effect. But, if the only person I'm pleasing is myself, I'd rather have it than not.
 
Crotan said:
Well I think you're ignoring another avenue all together, I think many people here are. And that's either rips or remuxed file formats.

For instance I watch plenty of 1080p mkv movies, yet I don't have a Blu-Ray player nor do I have the hassle of worrying about internet congestion on Netflix or buying third party software just to play a disc.

This is where the world is heading, physical media is a joke. If you have to spin something to read it, you're going to have a bad time. Be it a disc or HDD platter.
Click to expand...

No blu-ray player yet you got 1080p mkv's.
 
I can tell the difrence from HD audio and plain DD .There is a pretty big difrence. I have a few MKV's that have both the lossless and noloss sound tracks on them and they defalt to the nonlossless track. I'll be watching the movie and think to me self something doesn't sound right. Sure enough I check and it's not on the lossless track. I have a full dedicated theater with around 5k-6k worth of audio equipment. I am one of those "people" that have FLAC and SACD and Vinyl. And streaming to a 120inch 16x9 screen just doesn't cut it.. It's fine for TV show's I'm really not into buying TV shows once I watch them once I'm pretty much done with them. I like to watching them in at least 720p though. Unless it's something old that was only shot in 4:3 I don't really care all that much. But if I'm watching an Movie I want it full quality no half ass streaming.
 
Crotan said:
lol, that's the heading part. There is no need today for physical disc media or their respective drives. I can't say the same for the traditional HDD. But someday we will be able to say the same.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not.

There are some rather real challenges in scaling up flash memory far beyond what we have now. I wouldn't be surprised if the mechanical drive is around for volume storage for some time to come.

Me? I don't have any mechanical drives in my desktop. Just one SSD. No optical or hard drives directly in my main rig.

my volume storage is all on my FreeNAS box, out of earshot. :p

Locally my 6 disk RAIDz2 array benchmarks somewhere at about 480MB/s sustained reads. Gigabit ethernet currently limits me to about 100MB/s using NFS but only about 70MB/s over CIFS/SMB. Either way, its more than fast enough for file storage.

That and, my server can write to it (over a separate ethernet interface) without impacting my read and write speeds, which is pretty good.
 
mls1995 said:
Seriously? Wow! I can definitely tell a clear difference. Lossless audio is clearly better IMO.
Click to expand...

No you don't. Really. It's placebo or you made a bad comparison. I'd bet money on it. It needs to be apples to apples (preferably compare original lossless track to a track you encoded yourself so you know the source)

I have not met someone who could tell the difference. Just saying so doesnt count. Just do a 5 minute double blind test.

GreenMonkey said:
I'd bet so too. It's like mp3s - most double blind tests show most people cannot pick out the difference between mp3 and CD past about 192kbps (and even more so at 256k and above). Audiophiles insist on FLAC and even sillier stuff like SACD.

I haven't seen a definitive double blind study on it but I doubt most people can pick out the difference between compressed Dolby Digital and the uncompressed HD formats. If nothing else, I think Dolby Digital Plus would probably have done the trick (higher-bitrate/better codec DD).

The biggest thing for BD over streaming for me, is the pixellation you tend to get on high-movement scenes and such when they starve the bitrate.

I have absolutely zero interest in buying DRM'd digital files. Zero. You'd have to pay me to take them. BD is a lot better (although the constant needed AACS updates are annoying) plus you have something you can actually sell if you want to (another con of digital downloads).
Click to expand...

I choose AAC over dolby digital as much better and transparent at much lower bit rates (eg you can't tell the difference at lower bit rates. basically AAC is superior to dolby digital (and mp3)

Ur_Mom said:
It really depends on the equipment. I have no problems with a 256k (or 192) MP3 in my car. But, play the same file inside with my old (in process of updating) audio system and you'd notice a difference. Not a huge one, but you would notice one. Same with movies. Yes, I can tell a difference between Dolby Digital and DTS-HD. Watch movies like I Am Legend, Avatar or others with very minor things in the back ground. Wind, bugs, grass blowing, etc.. When it's all action, it's harder to tell, but when you get those really small nuances it can make a big difference. You can seriously hear things you didn't notice before and it makes it a more immersive experience.

But, for HTiB, you either won't notice or it will be very minor. The higher quality stuff is easily differentiated when you get into the higher quality of A/V equipment. I'm not even using real high end (Axiom mains and soon to be Dayton sub to replace aging M&K powered by a mid-range Yamaha receiver) stuff for audio. Projector is a Panny 3500 1080P with a 109" Elite screen. It's a dedicated home theater, but it's not super high end, but it's more than the average HTiB stuff. Yes, I do notice those small differences in that room. That's where I expect to, and that's why I go with the higher quality stuff. Why have the equipment be capable yet use inferior media? Why buy a HDTV and use 480i/p media? I enjoy movies, I enjoy the big screen and the nice loud clear audio of the movies. I spend money on that to enjoy my hobby. It's difficult to do all that and then fall back on crap quality.

Anywhere else in the house, car, work, I don't have the higher standards. Because I CAN'T tell the difference due to the lower equipment quality.
Click to expand...

Meh. I don't belive it has to do with equipment much at all. It's either placebo or a bad comparison (comparing some random movie you downloaded off the internet to your BD doesnt count) Also even comparing a DD track to a trueHD track on the same blu ray would not be a reliable comparison because they may not be from the same source or they, uh, gussied up the TrueHD track to reinforce the placebo effect.

GreenMonkey said:
Have you actually done a double blind test to verify? It's quite likely those differences are simply the placebo effect, or the effect of having the volume 1 or 2 decibels louder (people have a known psychological preference for louder = sounds better).

Just saying "I know it's better" is no better than the folks that insist garlic made their cold go away. Or whatever. It's random, anecdotal data - and not even valid data, if it wasn't double blind.
Click to expand...

yep

Ur_Mom said:
No, not a blind test at all. And it could be completely the placebo effect. But, if the only person I'm pleasing is myself, I'd rather have it than not.
Click to expand...

That sums it up. When it comes to audio, it's amazing how people will throw logic out the window. Its why humans have embraced religion, psuedoscience, etc etc... At least you admitted it, haha. ANd I understand how you feel.
The thing that gets me is so many will argue until the end of the earth their side without backing it up with real facts. It's always feelings and opinions.
 
TechLarry said:
If I'm buying it, I want it on Plastic.

Having thousands tied up in media controlled by someone else is just plain stupid IMHO.

Sony has already proven that, and I don't think it will be long before we see Zune to down as well.
Click to expand...

Agreed! Totally and Completely! And in many cases you can get a blu-ray disc for less than an HDX digital copy. But I guess some people think its more impressive to show off their digital list than their physical collection...? Than again, that's just Stupid as well, so I'll quit while I'm ahead. ;)
 
I never really transitioned to Bluray. We bought a PS3 as a BR player, but hardly used it at all for BR movies, and even less for games. It has played more movies off of Netflix than off of BR discs. We are not really a movie watching family though. The loss of fidelity hardly matters to me when most of the movies are mindless shit, suitable for little more than wasting 90 minutes now and again, in the first place.
 
I'm not sure where the confusion on this came from but Blu-ray and DVD ARE digital.

As for the question:
I stopped using optical media years ago for most things. The only things I use it for now are for certain backups, cd audio for vehicles, and certain things for friends and family. There is alot of discussion here regarding high definition, for me that's not so much of a concern as a good deal of my interests were never produced in HD. Not all things are made in HD even now. I'll have HD when I can but there are alot of things out there that were never made that way so I don't worry about it much. I also don't worry much about harddrive failure just simply because things get updated/upgraded often enough. I end up with backups of backups of backups with off-site backups of that. I would like to see the end of optical media....I think it's time.

Everyone has their way....I've chosen mine.
 
Hornet said:
Only if I'm allowed to keep it in my own PC (and not having to stream it each time I want to watch it), and it offers quality as good as Blu-Ray or better.
Click to expand...

And this is why I [fill in the blanks].

I own zero DVDs or Blurays. I like having all the stuff on my server, it's convenient, it's in MY own possession and I have control over it and best of all it's within the point of a remote. If my internet goes down, I can watch a movie if I want to, and that is the most likely thing I'd probably want to do if it happens.
 
It truly is amazing how people chose to back up their DVDs why?

Uncompressed and we are talking Blu Rays they take a shit load of space. The average Dual Layer DVD is probably taking about 7 GBs of space or more if it is a 2 disc movie with extras. You have to figure out how long it is going to take you to back up that in cost of computing power, which is low. However then you have the space aspect which to even have a back up you are talking about 2 hard drives. I would say at least about 1 to 2 Terabyte drives if we are talking a mid size DVD collection.

When the average DVD trades in at about 25 to 50 cents and sells for around 5-10 dollars used when you factor in inflation since DVDs have been created you guys literally have nothing better to do.

No offense. Then when you talking about streaming or transcoding to a shitty format for streaming or whatever you are talking even more time to maybe watch a 2 hour movie. It just doesn't make sense to me.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
There are a number of problems with this and why no one mentioned it.

1) The vast majority of these types of files are pirated. I know of next to no legitimate businesses selling blu-ray quality digital files.
2) Downloading Blu-ray quality with lossless audio is an absolutely Gigantic file. Given the BW caps most people have to deal with, it just isn't an option.
3) The overwhelming bulk of digital media available legally is no where even remotely close to blu-ray in terms of quality. Just because it claims 1080p, doesn't make the picture quality the same or especially the audio.
4) Given your reference to HDD storage I assume you are referring to streaming. The idea of streaming a true blu-ray quality movie is completely laughable for most people. I have a 50mb connection and frankly doubt I could do it smoothly. If you are referring to using SSD's as storage, then I am laughing even harder.
5) Storing your stuff in the cloud is utter and complete stupidity.

So that pretty much leaves physical media..why? Because it is superior in visual and audio quality, it is easier to obtain legally and access to it can't be suddenly turned off.
Click to expand...

For the purpose of DVDs I would agree, however cloud back ups offer a number of flexibilities. The problem with personal data is the value people put on it. Your data is not that valuable however people treat like it is gods gift to man.
 
No way.
I will take the source over any watered down compression any day.
Problem with this generation is that they easily give up quality for compressed vapor.
FLAC and MKV's are fine for backup.
But WAV and M2TS are source and will always be the best quality available to the consumer.
That means physical media.
Its a bad trend.
 
96redformula said:
Digital Stream looks HORRIBLE when I throw it on my 120" projector screen, epson 1080p projector.
Click to expand...

It's your screen and projector that's the source of the problem. Try swapping out that stuff for a 1366x768 13.3 inch TN laptop panel and then sit about 30 feet away from it. I promise you won't notice any quality loss over a disc in the correct viewing conditions. ;)
 
@ erexx
WAV does NOT mean physical media

@ 96redformula
Some of us might not desire a 120" projection system....56" is overkill for alot of people
 
prndll said:
@ erexx
WAV does NOT mean physical media
Click to expand...
True.
Does NOT "necessarily" mean physical media
But watch the MPAA finally figure it out and stop selling CD's.
Only to totally replace it something of far less quality and easier to get.
All in the name of giving the consumer what it really wants.
 
prndll said:
@ erexx
WAV does NOT mean physical media

@ 96redformula
Some of us might not desire a 120" projection system....56" is overkill for alot of people
Click to expand...

56" is overkill for me, but damn my living room wall is large enough to handle 120! I just need to knock out a wall to get my seating far enough back. 2013 project...
 
prndll said:
Some of us might not desire a 120" projection system....56" is overkill for alot of people
Click to expand...

Just as some of us do not desire nor want streaming piles of crap video and sound. :D

A 50" TV might look just fine with streaming video. But, go higher, and your preference towards physical media might change. I have no problems in the bedroom with a 37". I can tell a difference between the BR player in there and Netflix, but it's easily overlooked. But, on the big screen, it makes a much more noticeable difference.
 
This is the same conundrum facing audiophiles. There are superior formats, however the popular, weaker medium is the most popular. The prices on flat screens has plummeted to the point where 60" set can be had for under a 1000 USD. Still, it is the tablets and those on a tight budget who will opt for streaming services.

I have been ripping my Blurays and DVDs along with my CDs to a server for the sake of space. The discs sit in the basement, for occasional use on my projector.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039540091 said:
True,

But maybe broadband is better around here than it is where you live, but my connection hasn't gone down (other than requiring a quick router restart) in almost 10 years.

Or if it did, it was when the power was out anyway, and I couldn't use it :p
Click to expand...

I used the Internet to report my last power outage. And yes the power company actually has a special web form for telling them your power is out. I was just screwing around looking for the number to call and was like heck yeah, submit online?! Even better. My ups battery is getting old these days though. Still though I bet I can keep my router going a few hours off it so long as I keep the desktop machine off and only use the laptop. So yeah I'd stream video, but only if my power was out and I had to watch on a laptop and could not run my home theater to play a shiny blu ray.
 
Makeroflostsouls said:
I can tell the difrence from HD audio and plain DD .There is a pretty big difrence. I have a few MKV's that have both the lossless and noloss sound tracks on them and they defalt to the nonlossless track. I'll be watching the movie and think to me self something doesn't sound right. Sure enough I check and it's not on the lossless track. I have a full dedicated theater with around 5k-6k worth of audio equipment. I am one of those "people" that have FLAC and SACD and Vinyl. And streaming to a 120inch 16x9 screen just doesn't cut it.. It's fine for TV show's I'm really not into buying TV shows once I watch them once I'm pretty much done with them. I like to watching them in at least 720p though. Unless it's something old that was only shot in 4:3 I don't really care all that much. But if I'm watching an Movie I want it full quality no half ass streaming.
Click to expand...

It's not just your mkvs. there are blu-rays that default to the Dolby digital track... A couple minutes in I'll wonder why it sounds like ass then have to go into the menu and switch to Dolby TrueHD. Not sure why some blu producers do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top